國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
49 the co-management committee has very little influence over this issue. The same concept
applies to the collection of natural resources within the Park, which is also prohibited. All in all, while the co-management committee appears to be able to provide suggestions on these types of issues, it can do very little by way of protecting indigenous peoples’ rights and changing these laws.
IV. Current Concerns and Conflicts
As is the case with many other indigenous communities that have been displaced from their previously mountainous homes, there are numerous concerns and ongoing conflicts between the National Park Bureau and the Taroko indigenous peoples. These topics of dispute tend to center around hunting rights, access to natural resources, and the ability to return to historic village sites. While ideally, the Taroko National Park co-management committee should help to assuage some of these issues, due to the shortcomings of the committee, many of these concerns and conflicts persist.
One particularly contentious issue in the case of Taroko National Park co-management is the ability and right of Taroko indigenous peoples to hunt in their traditional lands. In fact, some present and past committee members insist that hunting rights are the most important issue within the Park and that Taroko peoples must fight to regain these traditional rights.27 Another Taroko community member argues that from the moment the Japanese pushed the Taroko peoples out of the mountains, “Taroko started to lose their ability to hunt” (Simon 2006). In spite of the National Park Law and the Wildlife Conservation Act’s strict regulations against hunting in the Park, some Taroko peoples continue to “hunt and defend hunting customs” as a way of engaging “in resistance against the Park and its strict enforcement of the law” (Simon 2006). While the law now states that Taroko peoples are allowed to hunt within their traditional territories with a permit, in recent years, “the Hualien County Government and Taroko National Park authorities [have forced] the Taroko community to violate Aboriginal tradition by refusing to issue hunting permits” (Wang and Chin 2015). In 2015, a hunting permit request filed by the
27 This information was collected as a result of in-person interviews conducted by the author with Tian Guifang and Teyra Yudaw, both on May 21, 2017. Translation assistance was given by anonymous interviewee, Yulin Zheng, and any translation or interpretation errors are entirely my own.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
50 Hsiulin community “was rejected by the Hualien County Government and Taroko National Park’s administration center on the grounds that the National Parks Act forbids hunting and fishing in national parks” (Wang and Chin 2015). Some Taroko community members fear that the refusal of the government to grant the hunting permit signifies “that the government ha[s]
lost interest in passing proposed amendments to the act to allow Aborigines to hunt for cultural and religious reasons,” especially considering that the requested hunt was to take place the traditional Taroko Thanksgiving Day feast (Wang and Chin 2015).
Following the government’s rejection of the aforementioned hunting bid, several Taroko hunters proceeded to carry out the traditional hunt in any event, and were then arrested and stripped of their firearms and game haul (Hua et al. 2015). This arrest, and others of a similar nature, have raised questions as to the government’s respect for the stipulations of the Wildlife Conservation Act and the Indigenous Peoples Basic Law, both of which “explicitly allow ‘the hunting and killing of wildlife’ for the ‘traditional, cultural or ritual’ needs of indigenous
peoples” (Hua et al. 2015). Another Taroko hunter who was recently arrested for hunting in her traditional lands within the National Park’s boundaries feels that her rights to continue the cultural practice of hunting are not protected by the Park’s co-management committee.28 This hunter, among others, remains frustrated because she understands that the co-management committee is supposed to represent the interests of Taroko communities, but often fails to do so.29
Several years prior, in 2007, a similar incident took place in which two Taroko hunters were chased through Taroko National Park, “leading to one elderly man falling from a cliff to his death” (Simon and Mona 2015). This tragedy led to a Taroko pro-hunting protest at Taroko National Park, during which protestors demanded:
1) that the park police issue a public apology; 2) that, in the event police officers again
‘have any behavior that violates human rights,’ the captain and all officers involved should be removed from the ‘territory of the Taroko Nation’; and 3) the government should implement the Article 19 Indigenous Peoples Basic Law in regard to hunting, by immediately revising or abolishing laws that criminalize hunting and trapping (Simon and Mona 2015).
28 Telephone interview conducted by the author with Apay Ai-yu Tang on May 01, 2017.
29 Ibid.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
51 While some of these demands have yet to be met, the head of the park police station did issue a public oral apology following the hearing after the protest (Simon and Mona 2015). Further aggravating these issues, “violations of wildlife law can be enforced by conservation patrollers under the authority of the Council of Agriculture and its Forestry Division, National Park police forces, and regular police patrols” (Simon and Mon 2015). From the perspective of the Taroko National Park police officers, many are concerned with balancing “the duty to implement state law with Chinese moral norms of qing (情 which translates as “sentiment”), mediated by reason (li 理)” (Simon and Mona 2015). According to the captain during the post-protest hearing, the police force does “not want to arrest everyone, but if a tourist has seen a hunter and called the police,” they must act (Simon and Mona 2015). Relatedly, a female Taroko hunter was arrested earlier this year when some neighbors called the police to report her activities.30 Upon arresting her, the police accused her of “wasting resources,” indicating the lack of public respect and understanding of indigenous traditional knowledge.31 Even now, the police “must negotiate between values of public service, compassion, and pity,” and hunters find this “uneven
enforcement of the law… quite unreasonable and difficult to predict” (Simon and Mona 2015).
Thus, is seems that “neither hunters nor police officers—those at the frontline of enforcement of wildlife laws—are content with the current regime” (Simon and Mona 2015). These recurring conflicts suggest the need for alternative management in Taroko National Park.
In addition to voicing concerns about the restrictions on hunting by Taroko peoples in their traditional lands, several community members have also raised points regarding the
outdated status of the protected animals list and the effects such has on the ecological balance of the Park. One interviewee revealed that in a recent visit to an ancestral village site, she noticed that a majority of the trees and plants on the mountainside had been eaten down by muntjacs, indicating a natural imbalance and an overabundance of the small mountain deer.32 The interviewee noted that in the past, animal populations were kept in check by Taroko hunters, however nowadays, because hunting is forbidden within the Park’s limits, animal populations are growing out of control and creating an imbalance in the ecosystem.33 Other community
members have raised similar concerns, asking “why is hunting [protected] monkeys permitted,
30 Telephone interview conducted by the author with Apay Ai-yu Tang on May 01, 2017.
31 Ibid.
32 Interview conducted by the author with Yulin Zheng on April 21, 2017.
33 Ibid.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
52 but hunting muntjacs and sambar forbidden?” (Hua et al. 2015). These questions are
accompanied by demands for the endangered species list to be updated more frequently (Hua et al. 2015).
Limitations on hunting in Taroko territories are not the only restrictions that the National Park places on local Taroko communities. One Taroko community member expressed that when she was younger, the Taroko people could fish and collect orchids and golden lily plants, as well as other non-timber forest resources.34 Since the Taroko National Park was established in those traditional territories, however, these resources can no longer be collected. These restrictions have created serious economic challenges for the Taroko peoples as well. Because many Taroko people cannot afford to purchase pork and other resources, they have long depended on the ability to hunt, cultivate the land, and collect resources for sustenance.35 In addition to the economic challenges posed by the park, some Taroko communities are frustrated by the National Park Bureau’s unwillingness to allow them to construct roads to access their ancestral homes. In many instances, either the roads have been damaged by typhoons, landslides, or other natural disasters, or there were no roads in the first place. Regardless, the National Park Bureau will not allow for the construction or reconstruction of roads because they fear it will upset the natural balance of the ecosystem and harm the environment within the park. Taroko peoples are
frustrated by this rationale, however, because the National Park Bureau itself has long promoted the construction and maintenance of a cross-country highway that intersects the Park and has a far greater effect on the Park’s environment than smaller access roads would. Thus, this restriction on the construction and reconstruction of roads has proven to be yet another contentious issue between the National Park Bureau and Taroko indigenous communities.
Relatedly, several Taroko scholars and community members have expressed their concern with the declining knowledge and education about traditional Taroko culture and practices among young children. While this issue is strongly connected to the declining use of the Taroko language, it is also deeply entwined with the current disconnect between Taroko children and traditional lands.36 These problems are further aggravated by the National Park’s restrictions on hunting and collecting forest resources. As Scott Simon argues, “hunting is an
34 Interview conducted by the author with Yulin Zheng on April 21, 2017.
35 Ibid.
36 Telephone interview conducted by the author with Apay Ai-yu Tang on May 01, 2017.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
53 intrinsic right for indigenous peoples, as a part of their basic human rights to preserve their cultural heritage,” which highlights the role that hunting plays in sustaining Taroko cultural knowledge (Simon and Mona 2015). Nowadays, though proponents of the language
revitalization movement cannot actually teach children to hunt and use other traditional skills, they do teach children to use hunting tools and take them out of the classroom to learn about plants and agriculture.37 Older generations, however, who have difficulty maintaining their connection to their ancestral lands within the Park, seldom encourage their children and
grandchildren to take part in these language and culture revitalization programs as they feel that these skills will not help young Taroko peoples to function in greater Taiwanese society today.38 One particularly notable concern regarding the actual co-management committee within Taroko National Park is the lack of awareness about the mechanism among Taroko indigenous community members. For instance, the female hunter mentioned previously was not even aware that such a co-management committee existed for Taroko National Park.39 Few people
understand the actual role or power of the committee, and even the Taroko National Park website contains very little information about the co-management committee.40 The limited information that is presented on the website merely alludes to the committee covering eight points of interest and the necessity of including indigenous peoples in the co-management process, but reveals nothing about how this is accomplished or what those eight points are. Additionally, Taroko community members have voiced their concern about the absence of real decision-making power in the committee. One interviewee even stated that “members in the committee, especially the indigenous peoples, feel that they are just giving advice. When the National Park wants to do something, they ask: ‘is this okay?’ [The committee] doesn’t have many conversations or decision-making rights.”41 Not only does the National Park Bureau fail to devolve decision-making rights to the Taroko National Park co-management committee, but the committee itself meets rather irregularly, convening some years but not others, and oftentimes determined by the National Park authorities rather than the Taroko indigenous peoples.42 The result of this
37 Telephone interview conducted by the author with Apay Ai-yu Tang on May 01, 2017.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.
40 Interviews conducted by the author in person with Yulin Zheng on April 21, 2017, and by telephone with Apay Ai-yu Tang on May 01, 2017.
41 Interview conducted by the author with Yulin Zheng on April 21, 2017.
42 Ibid.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
54 irregularity and advisory board is a large communication gap between the Taroko indigenous peoples and the National Park Bureau. Further widening this gap is the fact that a large portion of the National Park lands are controlled by Han people, particularly those working in the
National Park Bureau, because they tend to have more access to funding than Taroko indigenous peoples do.43 Not only has this led to unbalanced representation of indigenous and government interests, but it also seems to have stirred up more resentment among Taroko community members.
Furthermore, the nature of the co-management committee as an advisory council may be a result of the way Taiwanese legislature has written the law requiring co-management board in each National Park, however this leaves the committee without any legal infrastructure to support its rights and decisions. Thus, one of the greatest concerns with the functionality of the Taroko co-management committee is that it is far more effective in representing the interests of all parties in theory than it is in practice. The concerns and conflicts depicted above are not solely limited to the Taroko National Park territories, however, and I will discuss similar conflicts among other indigenous groups and government agencies in the coming chapter.
43 Interview conducted by the author with Tian Guifang on May 21, 2017.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
55 Chapter Three: Taiwan Forestry Bureau-Rukai Indigenous Peoples Co-Management
Initiative
In my second case study, I will focus on the Rukai peoples of Taiwan, particularly their historical movements, claims to traditional territories, and ongoing disputes and discussions with the Taiwan Forestry Bureau. I will then describe the steps that the Rukai peoples and Forestry Bureau are taking to establish a co-management committee, the objectives for the potential committee, and any present concerns or conflicts the Rukai peoples and Forestry Bureau have regarding the lands and resources to be managed. Because of the newly emerging nature of these co-management discussions, the information I will present was largely collected through a
walking workshop conducted across nine different Rukai villages, discussions and presentations by scholars, community members, and Forestry Bureau representatives at these villages, personal observations from such, as well as a supplementary literary survey.
Figure 8– Meeting at Kundagavane, Walking Workshop 2017